It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NASA "not" denying UFO's exist...

page: 3
42
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 08:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by LannisterGold
reply to post by exdog5
 


I think you guys need to look at this very objectively. UFOs = Unidentified Flying Objects. It is something in the air that they haven't identified yet. They're not saying that alien spacecraft are not related to aliens they are saying that "that something that is up there" is not related to aliens.


But thats the problem. If NASA can send men and technology to other planets (as they claim) then surely they must know what is flying around our planet.

Remember this, if they don't know what is flying around our planet, then they would not send people up to space because of safety and security fears.




posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 08:58 AM
link   
Two summers ago I was at the Cape to watch a shuttle launch. The flight was scrubbed so I spent considerable time at the Kennedy Space Center exploring the grounds and the gift shop. I retired for lunch and was thinking about what I saw and didn't see. Something was missing! So I returned to the huge gift shop for a specific search and slowly covered all of the displays on both floors. In the entire store there was not a single cap, T-shirt or even a keychain with anything pertaining to ETs and UFOs.

Merchandisers being what they are, the lack of such items means that the contract with NASA expressly forbid such items to be displayed.

We can argue about six different ways about why this was/is the situation. The question is, however, if UFOs are really just silly figments of mind, fiction, etc., shouldn't NASA play along as part of the cause of equating people with space if even in obtuse ways? Why not capitalize upon that? Is simplest answer that the denial of UFOs gets NASA into some unusual positions, as the excepts demonstrate in the OP?



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 09:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg
So NASA employees aren't allowed personal opinions?
I'd be curious to see that link, to verify you're not just imagining it for argument's sake.


I had a hunch you would turn up here Jim
......cue Exuberant1

Nobody is saying they are not allowed opinons, I think the whole consensus is: Whereever NASA is mentioned all information and sources must be examined closely as not to fall in to any entrapment that may or may not lead to fulfiling any agenda.



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 09:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by LannisterGold
I think you guys need to look at this very objectively. UFOs = Unidentified Flying Objects. It is something in the air that they haven't identified yet. They're not saying that alien spacecraft are not related to aliens they are saying that "that something that is up there" is not related to aliens.


For the sceptical minded individuals, one first needs to examine all the data before making judgements regarding UFO's/ NASA. I and many people on ATS have and it becoms more than apparent that in the majority of cases concerning astronauts encounters with 'UFO's' the information that is released in to the public domain has indeed been tainted and touched up in order to hide various details. it is for this very reason that people quite rightly do not trust NASA and have aptly named them as Never A Straight Answer.



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 09:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by exdog5
Still Reading, but this little bit sparked my brain-cage-



The U.S. Air Force (USAF) and NASA have had intermittent, independent investigations of the possibility of alien life on other planets; however, none of these has produced factual evidence that life exists on other planets, nor that UFO's are related to aliens.


Hi there, why the spark to brain? UFO means an unidentified flying object was witnessed. That doesn't mean it wasn't later identified. It states that the sightings investigated have produced no evidence of ET visitation.



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 10:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by LannisterGold
reply to post by exdog5
 


I think you guys need to look at this very objectively. UFOs = Unidentified Flying Objects. It is something in the air that they haven't identified yet. They're not saying that alien spacecraft are not related to aliens they are saying that "that something that is up there" is not related to aliens.


Yes but that article is clearly talking about UFO's and extraterrestrials...



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 10:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by roughycannon
Now before I start I'm a real sceptic just check my posts on here and I don't believe that we are being visited, I see people reading into things too much, jumping the gun and not doing any real research (sometimes) anyhoo just because I don't believe doesn't mean I dont at least have a passing interest in it...

So I was nosying around on the NASA site and I was looking at stuff about warps drives when I read this FAQ about UFO's and the way its written really confused me, now as I said I dont jump the gun, I re-read things twice and I try never to read between the lines but I'll point out some things that really made me go... erm what?

Now remember this is from the official NASA site and is an official answer from NASA in the FAQ read the whole article as things can easily be taken out of context but here are the bits I''m talking about...


On the subject of UFOs the signal to noise ratio is so abysmal, that it does no good to listen.


If they don't exist then how do you know the ratio is abysmal and why did you try to listen?


That whole subject is really irrelevant to our own human quest to travel to space. If we humans are going to figure out how to build space vehicles, then WE have to build our own space vehicles. It doesn't matter if it has or has not been done by someone else.


Talking about a suggestion of learning from UFO stories, is the answer not "they don't exist so we cant learn from them" ?


Even if UFOs were completely real, which is doubtful


What? you meant to say "Even if UFOs were completely real, which there not" didnt you?


if someone in the previous century saw a film of a 747 flying past, it would not tell them how to build a jet engine, what fuel to use, or what materials to make it out of. Yes, the wings are a clue, but just that


Why are you making a point about not learning from UFO's when the point is they don't exist?


During several space missions, NASA astronauts have reported phenomena


Really?


no UFO reported, investigated, and evaluated by the Air Force was ever a threat to our national security


If they don't exist why are you investigating if they a threat?


there was no evidence submitted to, or discovered by, the Air Force that sightings categorized as "unidentified" represented technological developments or principles beyond the range of modern scientific knowledge


So are the UFO's you then?


there was no evidence indicating that sightings categorized as "unidentified" were extraterrestrial vehicles


Only in the "unidentified" category? surely that would be all categories as they don't exist.


Given the current environment of steadily decreasing defence and space budgets, it is unlikely that the Air Force or NASA will become involved in this type of costly project in the foreseeable future.


So your not investigating them because of the budget? not that they don't exist?

As I said I'm not a believer but when I saw the FAQ title about UFO's I thought the answer wont be a flat out denial but it clearly isn't, remember and read the whole article because single quotes can easily taken out of context when not viewed in the complete paragraph.

I honestly came away from reading that thinking WTF? now I could be reading between the lines but some of the stuff in there is just a weird way to talk about something that doesn't exist, what do you guys think?

Woops forgot to add the link NASA article
edit on 10-2-2011 by roughycannon because: Forgot link

edit on 10-2-2011 by roughycannon because: (no reason given)


No star. No flag. You lie to begin with, saying you're a skeptic, because you used false logic at every point.

The basic statement they are trying to make is that they do not admit or deny the existence of aliens and that ufo doesn't mean aliens. They're being scietists going throug a scientific method. You're looking into it too much.



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 10:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Adlai

Originally posted by roughycannon
Now before I start I'm a real sceptic just check my posts on here and I don't believe that we are being visited, I see people reading into things too much, jumping the gun and not doing any real research (sometimes) anyhoo just because I don't believe doesn't mean I dont at least have a passing interest in it...

So I was nosying around on the NASA site and I was looking at stuff about warps drives when I read this FAQ about UFO's and the way its written really confused me, now as I said I dont jump the gun, I re-read things twice and I try never to read between the lines but I'll point out some things that really made me go... erm what?

Now remember this is from the official NASA site and is an official answer from NASA in the FAQ read the whole article as things can easily be taken out of context but here are the bits I''m talking about...


On the subject of UFOs the signal to noise ratio is so abysmal, that it does no good to listen.


If they don't exist then how do you know the ratio is abysmal and why did you try to listen?


That whole subject is really irrelevant to our own human quest to travel to space. If we humans are going to figure out how to build space vehicles, then WE have to build our own space vehicles. It doesn't matter if it has or has not been done by someone else.


Talking about a suggestion of learning from UFO stories, is the answer not "they don't exist so we cant learn from them" ?


Even if UFOs were completely real, which is doubtful


What? you meant to say "Even if UFOs were completely real, which there not" didnt you?


if someone in the previous century saw a film of a 747 flying past, it would not tell them how to build a jet engine, what fuel to use, or what materials to make it out of. Yes, the wings are a clue, but just that


Why are you making a point about not learning from UFO's when the point is they don't exist?


During several space missions, NASA astronauts have reported phenomena


Really?


no UFO reported, investigated, and evaluated by the Air Force was ever a threat to our national security


If they don't exist why are you investigating if they a threat?


there was no evidence submitted to, or discovered by, the Air Force that sightings categorized as "unidentified" represented technological developments or principles beyond the range of modern scientific knowledge


So are the UFO's you then?


there was no evidence indicating that sightings categorized as "unidentified" were extraterrestrial vehicles


Only in the "unidentified" category? surely that would be all categories as they don't exist.


Given the current environment of steadily decreasing defence and space budgets, it is unlikely that the Air Force or NASA will become involved in this type of costly project in the foreseeable future.


So your not investigating them because of the budget? not that they don't exist?

As I said I'm not a believer but when I saw the FAQ title about UFO's I thought the answer wont be a flat out denial but it clearly isn't, remember and read the whole article because single quotes can easily taken out of context when not viewed in the complete paragraph.

I honestly came away from reading that thinking WTF? now I could be reading between the lines but some of the stuff in there is just a weird way to talk about something that doesn't exist, what do you guys think?

Woops forgot to add the link NASA article
edit on 10-2-2011 by roughycannon because: Forgot link

edit on 10-2-2011 by roughycannon because: (no reason given)


No star. No flag. You lie to begin with, saying you're a skeptic, because you used false logic at every point.

The basic statement they are trying to make is that they do not admit or deny the existence of aliens and that ufo doesn't mean aliens. They're being scietists going throug a scientific method. You're looking into it too much.


You need to re-read that post you so carefully quoted, I mentioned twice that I could be reading between the lines and I also insisted that people read the article rather than my 1 sentence quotes because things can be taken out context when not read in the full paragraph, so where am I lying? I mentioned in the post it my thought's on it but I thought fellow ATS'rs would be interested in reading it, I didn't post it to lie and create controversy, I posted it because I found it odd that "present day" NASA who is generally considered by conspiracy theorists to be covering up, lying and denying their existence would post a discussion like that... and I'm still a sceptic and I don't think we are being visited.



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 10:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by polarwarrior
Its impossible to prove that ET's dont exist without having explored every nook and cranny of the entire friggen universe so for now all they can say is that its "doubtful".
I think a few of the skeptics here could take a page out of nasa's book and admit that without omnipresence they cannot prove a negative. Being open minded is the only wise stance imo.

Furthermore with guys like stephen hawking saying that et's MUST exist then its understandable that nasa may be a little more sane about the topic nowadays.


Does Hawkings say they MUST exist? I thought he said it's unlikely they didn't/don't/won't exist (my words to cover past, present and future) but that there is no proof. I think most skeptics would actually agree with that viewpoint.
edit on 10-2-2011 by something wicked because: typo



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 11:54 AM
link   
this is an interesting statement coming from NASA. of course more interesting that astronauts are talking about ET after leaving NASA. those people should have a good idea and I think they are trustworthy.

I have also heard today that there was a signal that can proof ETs exist. I think NASA denied it ... as always ... may be they are trying to prepare the public for the big news ... i do not know ....



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 12:33 PM
link   
reply to post by roughycannon
 
The government has some very telling copyrights from some otherworldly knowledge. Copyright on near speed of light capabilities. And in space the ufo's send out a signal that lets them know they won't run into anything when they from warp speed or better their space-time jump. The government has a patten on that signal info and it is in the nose of a whole fleet of shipping company planes. It can detect anything shot up in the air anywhere or anytime on earth. Now I know I am going to get a lot of flack on this just c2c.



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 12:38 PM
link   

NASA's Paradigm Shift - Life in our Galaxy is very likely




www.youtube.com...


NASA's Kepler Mission has discovered 54 planet candidates that orbit in the habitable zone of their host star; this so-called "Goldilocks" region is "not too hot or too cold, but just right" for the possible existence of liquid water on the surface of a planet. Four of those candidates are near Earth-sized planets in orbit around small, cool stars. The findings, discussed at a news conference held Feb. 2 at NASA Headquarters in Washington, are based on data collected by the space telescope between May and September, 2009. Ground-based observatories will be used this spring and summer to help determine if these candidates can be validated as planets.


www.youtube.com...

If nasa would just say "yes they are real" like it's no big deal we can move on.

edit on 10-2-2011 by Unknown Soldier because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 12:39 PM
link   
I thought the OP was compelling enough to warrant a complete read of the article, so I read it a couple of times.

After thinking about the confusing way in which it was presented, I think I finally understood the author's angle on the topic. It really is confusingly presented, but I read it this way:

Regarding the opening 'Signal to Noise Ratio' comment, I think he's speaking metaphorically here. I'm reading it as him saying that it's so hard to separate the potentially valid information from the completely invalid that it's not worth the effort of investigating. He's not talking about actual measurements of a physical UFO report.

His next problem is that he seems to change the context with which he uses the term UFO. In some cases: "Even if UFOs were completely real, which is doubtful..." he very clearly means UFO in the ET sense. In others areas where he refers to investigation of UFOs, he seems to mean UFO in the Unidentified Flying Object sense. Mixing these two definitions within one document makes the comments somewhat perplexing.

That said, we don't have a lot of information on how this FAQ was put together either. The comments in each section could be taken (copied and pasted) from other documents which would mean the sections labeled "What about UFOs?" and "What is the U.S. government doing to investigate UFOs?" may not be written by the same person, which would explain the lack of continuity in how the term UFO is treated.

Anyway, that is how I read that FAQ. At least, that's the only way that I can make sense of what it's saying.



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 12:43 PM
link   
reply to post by roughycannon
 


What I'm saing is, based on how you quoted the faq and what you said about those quotes after each one you are arguing like someone who wants to believe and is trying to make evidence fit with said belief instead of coming from an unbiased view point or a skeptical view point. Saying you aren't a skeptic does not make it true.and the conclusion of your post seemed more like a reach for credibility than a warning of arrogance in what you qouted and responded to the quotes with. You used debate techniques that ay good debater wuld call you out on, and so I called you out.

Clearly it's a game of ring around the rosey that nasa is playing, making it obvious that they just want people to wonder without ever giving straight answers, because if people think there are aliens then the government has a good red herring. The government has a pretty strong policy of misleading, never denying or confirming. This is misdirection, not a cover up of aliens.



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 12:46 PM
link   
I should add that I'm not saying that nasa isn't covering up the existence of aliens, or that aliens don't exist. I'm saying that there is no way to come to a logical conclussion that this faq proves an alien cover up.



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 12:56 PM
link   
People are getting the "signal to noise" comment misconstrued. There is no "signal" as you are thinking of it, but rather the overwhelming amount of HOAX UFO accounts floating around with potential real accounts. When the amount of HOAX accounts far exceed the potentially real accounts, it makes it very difficult to slog through all these accounts, particularly if 99/100 of them are just complete fabrications. Please, re-read this particular part of the FAQ and understand the mention of "signal" is NOT a rea signal, just a metaphor that apparently missed its mark with a couple people.



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 01:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlyInTheOintment
reply to post by laterallateral
 


Things can only be true or false in human terms if the observer has enough data to support a conclusion one way or the other.

For example... Your post makes a 'false' statement, because you have misunderstood the fact that a decision cannot be reached when the available data is limited...

My post (this one) represents a 'true' statement, in that it describes how there is plenty of leeway for a 'middle ground' where something cannot be categorised as true or false.

The agnostic position... The Gray Area... The fuzziness between the spaces; a place of limbo - schroedinger's cat. The place where anything could happen/ be happening because we can't call it one way or the other. Black, white, or shades of gray.



Your Gray area represents an acknowledgement of ignorance, a True statement.
Whether we're aware of them or not, there are no half-truths.



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 01:10 PM
link   
reply to post by roughycannon
 


I read through your comments and must add what I think of this article in the FAQ's

How can one "believe or not believe" in UFO's which, as we all know stands for Unidentified Flying Objects. As this article points out they don't investigate them. They may investigate unknown crafts but use a different terminology, eg. EBE or Unknown Atmospheric Phenomenon, I don't know what.

If you read that article again knowing that UFO is not a term used it may read better.



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 01:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Unity_99
reply to post by roughycannon
 



During several space missions, NASA astronauts have reported phenomena



Really?

no UFO reported, investigated, and evaluated by the Air Force was ever a threat to our national security



If they don't exist why are you investigating if they a threat?


These two are clinchers! The first few were a bit vague but these two should open people's eyes a bit more.

You do know that UFO dosent have to mean extraterrestrial spaceships?
Of course such cases have been investigated...
Some of you people are reading way much into these quotes.



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 01:30 PM
link   
if you read this document,

UFO's and NASA - Pdf
www.scientificexploration.org...

you might better understand the "Warp Drive When" article and why NASA doesn't want to acknowledge and investigate UFO's. basically the subject is a huge can of worms and that's why you see certain people promoting "prosaic" mundane explanations for any case related to the space program

Never Admit Seeing Anything



new topics

top topics



 
42
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join